So Apparently The Rumor Is Kovy Could Be Coming Back

Too much of a circus, imo. It would be a band-aid at best and a team killer at worst. The team got quite lucky in the way it turned out. Walk away Lou, walk away.

0

Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchensph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

Terms have to be right -- we just got out from under that albatross of a contract. I think Lou is forgiving, which is probably a good quality here, but Kovy would have to be willing to take less money.

0

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

Dino Costa got caught publishing other writers' articles on his website with new headlines, and no credit to the original writers. This guy has less than zero credibility. When someone who's worth a damn starts to discuss it, I'll listen.

Dino Costa got caught publishing other writers' articles on his website with new headlines, and no credit to the original writers. This guy has less than zero credibility. When someone who's worth a damn starts to discuss it, I'll listen.

This is actually a good point, but TG just said that if he wanted to come back this coming season, all 30 teams would unanimously need to OK it. I cannot see every team in the league voting for it regardless of the PR battle. I don't see Snider or Dolan siding with the Devils.

Siding from a personal point of view, no. But when your owners carry influence, sometimes other owners cater to them. Blitzer and Harris probably have influence and so it may not be far fetched that they let Kovy back as a favor to them.

This is actually a good point, but TG just said that if he wanted to come back this coming season, all 30 teams would unanimously need to OK it. I cannot see every team in the league voting for it regardless of the PR battle. I don't see Snider or Dolan siding with the Devils.

This all comes from memory, so I might be completely off, but I think it's possible that the NHL by-laws, which is where I think the 30 owner consent requirement comes from, are not so ironclad.

When Kovy first announced his retirement from the NHL, I took a brief look at the NHL bylaws to see what they had to say about reversing the cap circumvention penalty. Lo and behold, there was something about the Board of Governors, which consists of representatives from all 30 teams, needing to approve the reversal of a penalty. We know now that Bettman unilaterally modified the punishment. So I suppose it's possible that there's something in the bylaws that allows Bettman to pull rank on everyone in this instance.

EDIT:

Edited by Daniel, 10 June 2014 - 01:33 PM.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Dino Costa got caught publishing other writers' articles on his website with new headlines, and no credit to the original writers. This guy has less than zero credibility. When someone who's worth a damn starts to discuss it, I'll listen.

Official NJDevs.com Keeper of Gory Corey Schwab, Mike Peluso, Troy Crowder, Jeff Frazee, and Rich Shulmistra."The Devils are that zombie that takes an ax to the skull, a bullet to the temple and is set on fire … and yet keeps lumbering along to the annoyance of all the other zombies." - Puck Daddy

Well, I went ahead and took a look at the By-Laws and Constitution that are online. I should note that the version I have was effective only as late as 2009, so it's possible that there have been amendments. Anyway, I think, despite the recent media reports, they could be read to allow someone like Kovy back in after one year from the date of his retirement without 30 owner consent and without him having to sit out from hockey for a year.

The section that TG and others have been relying on says: "A player whose name has been entered on the Voluntarily Retired List shall not be removed from that list within one calendar year of such entry or within one calendar year from his cessation of playing hockey for any team in any professional league in North America or on a professional or amateur team outside of North American, whichever is later, without the unanimous consent of all Member Clubs". Seems pretty ironclad.

However, the very next section says: "[T]he Club on whose Voluntarily Retired List a player's name has been registered may transfer his name back on its Reserve List at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of registration on the Voluntarily Retired List by filing any currently valid contract, option, or try out". It doesn't appear that the term "valid contract" is defined, or if it is, I don't have the inclination to look for it since the document I have isn't searchable. At the very least though, this could mean that the Devils could unilaterally bring back Kovy a year from his retirement date, but on the same terms as the contract he had at the time. Fat chance at that, but I suppose it's not completely beyond the realm of possibility that the Devils, at least internally are weighing whether the money is there to pay out the real contract dollars and whether the team can absorb the cap hit, including potential recapture penalties down the road.

The hook though comes from the Constitution, which give the Commissioner the "authority to interpret, and from time to time establish policies and procedures regarding, the provisions of [ ] the By-Laws [ ] and their application and enforcement. Any determination made by the Commissioner with respect to any such mater shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to any review".

So ultimately it seems that Bettman can unilaterally approve Kovy's return notwithstanding what the By-Laws say. He runs the risk of pissing off the rest of the owners to the point that he gets fired, but that seems to be the only recourse.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

I think you're interpreting that loosely, Daniel - here's how I would read it, that the first clause you quoted governs the second. So this is the case: "A player whose name has been entered on the Voluntarily Retired List shall not be removed from that list within one calendar year of such entry or within one calendar year from his cessation of playing hockey for any team in any professional league in North America or on a professional or amateur team outside of North American, whichever is later, without the unanimous consent of all Member Clubs" So this is simply true, and like you said, ironclad. The second clause lacks the conditional phrase which I will now supply in brackets: '[Provided the player does sit out one year, or has been unanimously allowed to return to the league despite having played in a professional or amateur league more recently than one year ago], [T]he Club on whose Voluntarily Retired List a player's name has been registered may transfer his name back on its Reserve List at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of registration on the Voluntarily Retired List by filing any currently valid contract, option, or try out."

The second clause you cited to me just seems to be procedural - in the event that a player wishes to unretire, and is allowed entry back into the league, and his old club wishes to sign him, here is what happens. Otherwise the second clause just negates the first outright, and that doesn't make sense. I'm trying to think of a player that did this, any help? It's hard to think of players who retired with valid contracts.

I think you're interpreting that loosely, Daniel - here's how I would read it, that the first clause you quoted governs the second. So this is the case: "A player whose name has been entered on the Voluntarily Retired List shall not be removed from that list within one calendar year of such entry or within one calendar year from his cessation of playing hockey for any team in any professional league in North America or on a professional or amateur team outside of North American, whichever is later, without the unanimous consent of all Member Clubs" So this is simply true, and like you said, ironclad. The second clause lacks the conditional phrase which I will now supply in brackets: '[Provided the player does sit out one year, or has been unanimously allowed to return to the league despite having played in a professional or amateur league more recently than one year ago], [T]he Club on whose Voluntarily Retired List a player's name has been registered may transfer his name back on its Reserve List at any time after the expiry of one year from the date of registration on the Voluntarily Retired List by filing any currently valid contract, option, or try out."

The second clause you cited to me just seems to be procedural - in the event that a player wishes to unretire, and is allowed entry back into the league, and his old club wishes to sign him, here is what happens. Otherwise the second clause just negates the first outright, and that doesn't make sense. I'm trying to think of a player that did this, any help? It's hard to think of players who retired with valid contracts.

I thought about that, but I don't think my reading necessarily negates the first clause. For instance, a player retires with only a year left on his deal, and remains retired for a couple of years after his contract would have otherwise expired before he decides to make a go at a comeback, sort of like Rafalski. Or, even better, it might be someone that would otherwise have an existing contract, but wants to come back on a new deal. That's where the first clause comes in. The second clause applies when a player and the team wants the player to come back on the terms of his existing contract. So, if you wanted to give more credit to Costa than he deserves, it's possible that's at least what the Devils are "discussing".

Note that if this were being interpreted by a court I would definitely say your view wins out. But ultimately, it's up to the Commissioner who doesn't have to worry about appeals courts, and the like. I mean, I didn't imagine that the Devils could be penalized for cap circumvention notwithstanding the ruling of the arbitrator, as that was clearly meant to punish under the table dealings, but Bettman thought otherwise.

EDIT: Your view would also make the phrase in the second clause "at any time after the expiry of one year" superfluous, as it could have just said something to the effect of: "in the event that a player is eliglble for reinstatement in accordance with the first clause..." here's how it's handled.

But yeah, the ambiguity comes from the fact that the By-Laws were probably written before you started seeing the front loaded long term deals, so no one thought it would be an issue. That's why it's also possible that the By-Laws have been amended.

Edited by Daniel, 10 June 2014 - 03:39 PM.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

I think the rule is more for players not to leave their current teams to get out of their contract only to go to a new team. It's to protect teams from losing key components. So, it is logical that the more loosely interpretation is viable in this case.

If the cap conversation comes back into play there is no way his cap is going to be less than it was before. If this does come to fruition were looking at at least a 7m cap hit throughout the contract.

Again even if he hated it. Even if the Devils desperately wanted him back, there is not a chance in hell the rest of the owners or GMs will allow it.

Right, but if he really hated it, he could sit out for a year, do his Rocky IV training regimen, and come back without needing owner approval. It's also possible that he could come back under the deal he has, although the Devils probably don't want to do that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Siding from a personal point of view, no. But when your owners carry influence, sometimes other owners cater to them. Blitzer and Harris probably have influence and so it may not be far fetched that they let Kovy back as a favor to them.

They don't have any influence. And to be honest some of the teams would probably spite them for getting a pick back.

As long as Sather and Burke are employed you can write the Rangers and Flames down as NOs should it ever be voted.

Put this dead horse to rest already.

I know a lot of us would accept Kovy back, the big question is... Will the locker room accept it?